Military spending goes up every year. Save for Dodd-Frank, deregulation has been common across presidencies for 30 years along with corporate tax cuts...
The establishment gets things done, they really do, it’s just not things that help everyday people. I’m not sure how this would help that.
Yes, there are things the parties agree on, but that minimizes the huge, material differences between their platforms, e.g.:
- appropriate levels of taxation, and especially types of taxation (e.g. capital gains, inheritance taxes, etc.)
- mix of spending on social programs
- the huge gap on social issues, such as abortion, gay rights, gun control, etc.
"They're just the same, they don't care about the little guy, etc." are tactics the Russian trolls used to convince people not to vote.
My point is, fighting “zealotry” is just a nice way of saying let’s make it easier for corporate centrism.
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Defense_spending.p...
They are literally presenting the same information, just pegging inflation to different years.
Also, to your point "As a relatively high income earner the only significant tax increase I've ever seen was under Trump.", and don't see how this could possibly be true. For example, Obamacare added significant taxes for Medicare payroll and the surtax on investment income for high earners.
Federal politics is a distraction. A useless distraction that you're obsessed with. That's the kind of thinking that's "dangerous".
While I realize this is pretty much a trolling post, I just want to highlight that you are in quite the privileged position to believe this. You couldn't possibly believe "federal politics is a distraction" if:
1. You desire to get married to someone of the same sex.
2. You have anyone you care about who has been affected by federal drug laws.
3. You have any close relatives who are citizens of another country.
4. You are a woman who cares deeply about her own reproductive rights. Conversely, you believe that human life starts at a stage earlier than currently recognized by the Supreme Court.
5. You have a pre-existing medical condition.
I could go on, and of course there are loads of ways federal policies affect virtually everyone albeit in a less direct manner (tax policy, monetary policy, foreign trade policy, etc.)
But congratulations, I'm sure those only apply to other people, so fuck them.
Personally I'd like to see the government stop spying on US citizens, more protections for digital privacy and free speech, reduced military spending, curbs on an an increasingly militarized police force and privatized judicial system, and policies designed to protect the American middle class against increasing globalization. It's hard to draw a meaningful distinction between parties on any of these policies and they matter much more to me than the ones you've listed.
1. "government stop spying on US citizens, more protections for digital privacy and free speech" - OK, this one I'll give to you, I don't see significant differences between the mainstream parties on this one. But I'd argue that is because this issue is actually so low (sadly, IMO) on the vast majority of Americans' concerns.
2. "reduced military spending" - If you honestly think the parties are equal when it comes to their enthusiasm for military spending, you are not paying attention. As one example, the whole reason for the 2013 budget sequestration rules were that they included large cuts for military (which Democrats wanted) and social programs (which Republicans wanted) which both sides thought would force them to compromise - the fact that ALL cuts went through when they couldn't reach an agreement just highlights which programs were important to which parties.
3. "an increasingly militarized police force and privatized judicial system" - again, this is an issue that Democrats are much more on your side than the average Republican, mainly because urban minorities, which tend to vote Democrat, are the group most negatively affected by these policies.
4. "policies designed to protect the American middle class against increasing globalization" - while I tend to agree with the main gist of this argument, especially in that both parties have enthusiastically supported many free trade deals, Republicans have shown much more antipathy to unions, both in the past and currently.
The fact that you say "It's hard to draw a meaningful distinction between parties on any of these policies" is just baffling to me.
Really? It seems to me like you either agree or gave a kind-of-not-really example for each point.
"By Republicans in Congress"
The Republican House had narrowly passed a bill on December 20, 2012,[15] which would have replaced only the defense side of the sequester with cuts to programs including food stamps, Dodd-Frank and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
"By Democrats in Congress"
Patty Murray, Democratic Chairwoman of the Senate Budget Committee, proposed on February 14 to replace the 2013 sequester with $110 billion in spending cuts and tax increases. Like the House version, these policies also include a Buffett-rule tax, the closure of the oil subsidies, and cuts to farm subsidies. Additionally, this bill would cut defense spending for 2013 in excess of the amounts required by the current sequester. But this bill has little chance of winning the 60 votes required to override a filibuster.
-----
See my point?
Contrast that with the Republican healthcare plans, which consist of nothing more than "not obamacare"
Republicans have the same stance on gun violence and climate change.
Granted, quadratic voting specifically was probably not designed with parliamentary elections in mind. There are other systems in use that are designed to be fair and result in decent representation of voters.
The two longest lasting, largest, most successful democracies of all time - I don't see the problem.
The arguments against winner-take-all are mathematically maximizing a collective total happiness score for single elections. But governments are run by people, not math, and I've yet to see anything addressing the psychology of election systems and especially not over time.
If instead election systems are scored on how well they do after 250 years or how few world wars they start then winner take all is the only winner.
They both have problems with large minorities of voters not being represented in their respective parliaments.
It's hard to argue against someone's feelings.
But if you want to talk about good governance over time, does the country endure and does it make good decisions that ultimately benefit the country, that would be a more productive discussion. You have an uphill battle, with history not being kind to proportional democracies, but there's plenty of room for opinions and reasonable disagreement.
It's possible that constantly pitting constituents against each other is actually a vital component of democracy.
I think by any objective measure the US has seen an explosive growth in regulation the last 30 years.
I really wish I had an objective measure around to demonstrate this with...
Democrats are against outright hostility and blatant marginalization of certain classes.
But both have largely been ok with everyone being exploited by feudal trade economics, bombing other nations to satisfy global political norms, and swindling developing nations out of their resources, while emotionally coddling elites.
It means something to not be outright hostile to the truly marginalized, but the Dems have not exactly been labors friend. And most people are laborers. They’ve failed the majority plenty.
There are tons of YouTube videos on college campuses that prove otherwise.
Well, Goldwater tried to warn the Republicans about what would happen if they kept sucking up to the evangelicals, and...
Oh, wait, were you talking about Democrats?
But I did conclude that they also fall short in many areas.
There are activist organizations on both sides calling for violence and both should be condemned.
What rock are you living under?
Republicans are against outright hostility and blatant marginalization of certain classes.
Not the same classes, perhaps even classes that many don't want recognized, such as the unborn, but the statement is still just as true.
No popular party can do this or they wouldn't be truly marginalized. By definition, it's impossible.